Free Things They Carried Essays: Psychoanalytic Criticism
Psychoanalytic Criticism of The Things They Carried
Within the book The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien said, “A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it.” O’Brien is a Vietnam veteran who does not consider himself a hero. This is interesting because while growing up in the United States of America, people have learned that all veterans are heroes. Americans were raised on hearing war stories that were uplifting and encouraging, but when O’Brien wrote the book, The Things They Carried, he wrote it in the sense that not all war stories are true. That is why he called the book “a work of fiction”; …show more content…
There is a part in the story when O’Brien talks about how after the war, Norman Bowker drives around the lake imagining what his father would be saying to him. He imagines that his father is telling him that it is okay that he didn’t get a silver star. Jacob Dvorak, author of the presentation called “Psychology in The Things They Carried,” argues that this moment is demonstrating the Oedipus complex. Dvorak says that Norman Bowker looks to his dad as a comforting partner. I completely disagree with Jacob on this point. I think that this is more denial in the sense that Bowker is creating his own reality to cope with the actual reality of the situation. His dad is not with him, he is just driving around by himself but, he is imagining that his dad is present. All Bowker wants to do is make his dad proud, till the point he hallucinates conversations between them. On page 136, O’Brien writes about the dialogue between Norman Bowker and his imaginary father, “‘You have seven medals.’ ‘Sure.’ Seven. Count’em. You weren’t a coward either.’” This is key proof that Bowker just doesn’t want to let his father
Within the book The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien said, “A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it.” O’Brien is a Vietnam veteran who does not consider himself a hero. This is interesting because while growing up in the United States of America, people have learned that all veterans are heroes. Americans were raised on hearing war stories that were uplifting and encouraging, but when O’Brien wrote the book, The Things They Carried, he wrote it in the sense that not all war stories are true. That is why he called the book “a work of fiction”; …show more content…
There is a part in the story when O’Brien talks about how after the war, Norman Bowker drives around the lake imagining what his father would be saying to him. He imagines that his father is telling him that it is okay that he didn’t get a silver star. Jacob Dvorak, author of the presentation called “Psychology in The Things They Carried,” argues that this moment is demonstrating the Oedipus complex. Dvorak says that Norman Bowker looks to his dad as a comforting partner. I completely disagree with Jacob on this point. I think that this is more denial in the sense that Bowker is creating his own reality to cope with the actual reality of the situation. His dad is not with him, he is just driving around by himself but, he is imagining that his dad is present. All Bowker wants to do is make his dad proud, till the point he hallucinates conversations between them. On page 136, O’Brien writes about the dialogue between Norman Bowker and his imaginary father, “‘You have seven medals.’ ‘Sure.’ Seven. Count’em. You weren’t a coward either.’” This is key proof that Bowker just doesn’t want to let his father